sorry for long post but i felt it necessary.
Originally posted by Cris
It is an issue that surrounds the founder of a major religion. This is entirely relevant to such a forum as this.
And it should be discussed properly and unbiasly.
The issue is whether the claims in the article are true or false.
Apparently not for you as you summised;
"Sad to say, this world religion espoused by more than a billion contemporary human beings, is based on a delusion."
You are saying it is a fact and as such, you have indirectly set the tone for uneseccary conflict. If you were seriously intent on debate, you would have omitted that part and left it open, or stated it was your opinion.
You seem to be confusing the question of whether the article is offensive or whether I am offensive for bringing the article to everyone’s attention.
There is no confusion, you are offensive for this and many other things.
Are you also inclined to attack your postman if he brings you bad news
I didn't attack you, i merely stated exactly what you did.
The question is not relevant. The interpretation can be seen as an encouragement of violence as opposed to say diplomacy or pacifism.
That is most probably your understanding of it because that is how you see it.
A mujahid is devoted to his or her cause; uses all physical, intellectual, and spiritual capacities to serve it; employs whatever force he or she can when confronting that which blocks his or her way; and, when necessary, dies for it.
You can clearly see that the capacities which are to be used are intellectual and spiritual as well as physical. The physical capacities are not only meant for violence, there are all kinds of physical activities that can benifit ones life without the use of force, but if it is necessaryand physical force is required, then so be it.
The justification of self-defense is another issue.
This is a nonsence statement. If you read the verse from the Qur'an, i posted to you, you will see that violence is only acceptable in self-defense.
That they may have misinterpreted their scriptures seems to be fairly common and is an issue that Islam should attempt to resolve.
If that is the case then you are correct, but where you go wrong is that you attribute this course of action to Islam such as 9/11 which quite rightly gets up the nose of those who are adhering to its principles. In the article it is insinuated that Mohammad (pbuh) sufferered from delusions of grandeur, of which a symptom is, vengance on those who oppose his position or something to that effect. But it is clear from that verse i posted that that is not the case.
Are you sure? Can you honestly tell me you have not seen on TV or read in news reports of the Mullahs, for example, who are clearly inciting their Muslim followers to fight a holy war against the western infidels, or the many variations on this theme?
You have to be more specific because although that may be the case, some can argue that this type of jihad is relevant. For example, the Israel/Palestine conflict. It would be almost impossible for you or I to state whether their reasons are just or offensive, as we are here not there.
If their reasons are purely offensive, then that cannot be attributed to Allah or Mohammad (pbut), as the rules are clearly laid out for all to decide if Islam/Religion is the cause.
As defined in the dictionary.
It may then be religiously inspired in the way one can be inspired by the love of a woman, or an heroic act, but the results cannot be attributed to the source of inspiration, only the inspired person.
If a man kills those who oppose Mohammad (pbuh) and Islam, who have not sought to opress physically, then he cannot be a muslim no matter how much he thinks he is because a muslim is someone who surrenders to Allah, adhering strictly to principles set by the message, and the message clearly outlines when violence is justified.
My point was about those Muslims who have deliberately interpreted the term differently and are using it to justify violence.
But that is something else, not Islam.
My point is also that the various explanations of Jihad can be fairly easily misinterpreted, and even some fundamentalist Islamic leaders adopt the more unfortunate interpretation.
Then blame them, not the religion.
To some extent of course it is but then debates where everyone agrees are quite boring.
We can still disagree without confrontation.
But I offered no personal opinions until I was personally attacked.
you said,
"Sad to say, this world religion espoused by more than a billion contemporary human beings, is based on a delusion."
I'm sorry, but that is a personal opinion. You have in the past stated many times that theists are delusional. Unless you can prove your assertion is correct the fact that you assert it without question means it is a personal opinion.
LOL!!! When all else fails....... Ad Hominem!
Cheap and simple way out, eh
No, just objective observation.
By her own admission;
"Thanks Jan, I strive for this acceptance despite my uneducated imperfect views on issues..."
She humbly assumes the position of un-educated in certain areas. (which i dis-agree with), she has in the past, commented on your intellectual and logical ability, placing herself below you.
I think if you sincerely read the conversation between you, you will realise that she is attempting to debate with you, as opposed to sticking to a strict dogmatic doctrine, even though she is a muslim and must have the utmost respect for Mohammad (pbuh), the only muslim to take (serious) part in this (so-called) debate in fact.
No, just simply that there is no value in talking to someone who does not know how to hear.
That is so condescending.
You sound more like the sore loser who does not know how to compete against stronger arguments.
You are deluding yourself, there is no argument. With you there can never be, you kill everything before it has a chance to flourish. You are basically here to spread you views period.
Or that there is no good reason to see a religion in a favorable light.
What is wrong with the Qur'an, in your opinion?
Or to attempt to make the adherent see how they are making a serious error in their conclusions.
How are you going to achieve that by getting peoples backs up?
I have never called anyone here a fool.......
.............I have never claimed that a religionist is incapable of real intelligence
From your (well known) perspective; god is imaginary/fantasy, people who believe in such things are deluded, it follows. The conclusion can only be tht they are fools for believing in something that doesn't exist. This is your thinking.
don’t accuse me of things that I have never said. You are being disingenuous here.
Maybe you have not said it directly, but your whole cyber personality suggests it. It appears it's something you've yet to realise.
That you choose to see these objective observations from an emotional perspective is perhaps due to your probable missing education in critical thinking. That, I think, is your problem and not mine.
My perspective in this case is based purely on observation, not emotion. And i don't think your education in critical thinking serves you on these forums, although you may think it does. If you seriously believe you are being honest and rational in your aproach to religion, period, then i have to say you are deluding yourself.
From one perspective.
Does the author know how God would make his presence known through someone if it were to happen?
If he does not believe in God, then what good is his evidence?
Or perhaps I am quite normal but you simply feel very repressed because you cannot overturn my stronger arguments.
This is a very serious subject and the point is not to win but to establish truth. It is very difficult to do if you are opressing or opressed. All that does is create a bad feeling. Nobody wins.
Love
Jan Ardena.
